Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

(24-03-2015 19:27 )munch1917 Wrote:  Bare Behind Bars - Horror Channel - 22:55-00:45 tonight

Interesting title, and more interesting description :

Salacious sexploitation that was once banned in the UK.

Firstly I already have this movie on DVD. I bought Bare Behind Bars from amazon when it was banned in the UK

It's one of the best sexploitation films I've ever seen, it was everything in it. Girl on girl, close up vag and water bondage among many other delights that you are unlikely to see on the babe channels for some time or ever

(06-03-2015 23:40 )eccles Wrote:  Right now Sky Arts are showing bite size short between listed shows, 20 female dancers and lots of water in the Somerset House courtyard. Not adult content but much nicer than Coronation Street.

Eccles where have you been, have you been living in a cave or something as that clip has been replayed on SKY for well over a year

Maybe OFCOM allows full frontal nudity as long as the girl in question has enough pubic hair to stuff a sofa.

I'm really going over old ground here but its different rules for different channels for example.

SKY Movies can show 18+ movies at any time of the day regardless of the content such as films like The Sessions just so long as they are pin protected up until 8PM.

Anything that SKY owns Ofcom cannot dictate to so easily. Ofcom are not interested in going to war with them hence the reason for the leeway.

Channels that do not belong to SKY but only broadcast off their satellites have to adhere to a much stricter set of rules.

SKY have already stated that they have no responsibility whatsoever to the other channels. They can be revoked and removed without any sort of prior warning and the only thing that SKY would lose from this would be the income generated by the rent money for a space on the EPG which they'd hardly even notice as it would be mere pennies to them.

The babe channels are classified as teleshopping with certain allowances being put in place in order to allow them to exist. Ofcom give the channels the rules and they either stick to them or we'll come down on you like a ton of bricks. We are at the mercy of the rule makers which as always is going to have a play it by ear scenario to it. A legal challenge to the contradictory measures put in place would be nice but the punters need to stop ringing the channels in order to force their hand.

The advertising rule is probably why we never see Chloe Everton naked on QVC.

(24-03-2015 23:06 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 23:40 )eccles Wrote:  Right now Sky Arts are showing bite size short between listed shows, 20 female dancers and lots of water in the Somerset House courtyard. Not adult content but much nicer than Coronation Street.

Eccles where have you been, have you been living in a cave or something as that clip has been replayed on SKY for well over a year

Damm right, Im hiding from Clarkson.

Seriously tho my flatmates aren't into Sky Arts so its rare for me to have an idle flick.

(24-03-2015 23:22 )Tractor boy Wrote:  Maybe OFCOM allows full frontal nudity as long as the girl in question has enough pubic hair to stuff a sofa.

Bring back Tammy!

(24-03-2015 23:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I'm really going over old ground here but its different rules for different channels for example.

SKY Movies can show 18+ movies at any time of the day regardless of the content such as films like The Sessions just so long as they are pin protected up until 8PM.

Anything that SKY owns Ofcom cannot dictate to so easily. Ofcom are not interested in going to war with them hence the reason for the leeway.

Channels that do not belong to SKY but only broadcast off their satellites have to adhere to a much stricter set of rules.

SKY have already stated that they have no responsibility whatsoever to the other channels. They can be revoked and removed without any sort of prior warning and the only thing that SKY would lose from this would be the income generated by the rent money for a space on the EPG which they'd hardly even notice as it would be mere pennies to them.

The babe channels are classified as teleshopping with certain allowances being put in place in order to allow them to exist. Ofcom give the channels the rules and they either stick to them or we'll come down on you like a ton of bricks. We are at the mercy of the rule makers which as always is going to have a play it by ear scenario to it. A legal challenge to the contradictory measures put in place would be nice but the punters need to stop ringing the channels in order to force their hand.

All true.

Quite rightly there is an enforced difference between Sky the platform provider and Sky the content provider, otherwise there would be potential for huge conflict of interest.

It makes no sense whatsoever that 18 movies can be shown at any time of day, provided they are PIN protected, but babe channels cannot show blowjob hand signals at 3am. (OK, different things). Or go topless/wear a thong/nurses outfit during the day. Grown ups watch films at home and have relationships during the day. Idiots can watch any extreme torture porn video nasty when their kids are around, but cant see natural nudity. Daft.

Unfortunately babe channels are classified as advertising, as they exist to push premium rate phone calls, and the law is different for "editorial" and advertising.

The rule for "Editorial" material is that "generally accepted standards are applied ... to provide adequate protection ... offensive and harmful material."

But for advertising the law is "the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented".

There is a huge difference between "adequate protection" and preventing material that "may" be offensive.

Thats law, there is a question about whether the law exceeds EU requirements, but lets keep expectations realistic, the law isnt about to change.

Enforcement of the law might. What does "may" cause offence mean? To me "volvo" sounds a bit like "vulva", does that mean all Volvo ads must be banned?

Why is it acceptable for encrypted channels freeviews to show women sucking dildos, lesbian nipple sucking, and implied images of genuine sex, some of it threesomes, all of which Ofcom say cause higher levels of offence, at times when babes cant get their baps out? Both are adverts but the rules are different.

Hypocrisy.

(07-04-2011 22:13 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Watch BBC Four tonight at 2345 as they are showing Fanny Hill - who says the BBC don't do pornography

It's available at the moment on Catch Up. Tune in if you want to see the female flatmate from those crap BT ads get her lovely tits out.

Drive Angry has an unbelievable sex scene. Wicked. Broadcast on Five at 10:55 Sunday 19 April, it will probably be repeated and may be available on catchup.

Accidentally say Popoz: Filthy Cops on ComedyXtra this evening (I had company and usual viewing was not an option). Its a Dutch comedy show, the one episode I saw had a nice extended fantasy scene with a coroner (stay with me, its worth it) acting like something out of Benny Benassis Satisfaction video. Full on topless. OK, its not babeshow hot, but its not bad for mainstream TV.

Popoz: Filthy Cops
Friday/Saturday 00:00-00:30, ComedyXtra Sky channel 128.
Next Friday "The cop show so crazy they wanted to ban it in Holland! Crime will not get in the way of lunch time for our guys! But strippers will get in the way of defusing a time bomb or will they help? (S1, E02)."

Watch purely in the interests of research of course.

DailyMotion clip - the age gate may need to be turned off.

Ancilla Tilia in Popoz HD by ObsCure